started to be asked by the parliament member that you see standing up on the left-hand side, the female asking about the pay crowd to gordon taylor. gordon taylor was the chief executive of the professional futboler's association whose phone was hacked by news of the world staffers. allegedly he received a settlement of $1.6 million. it also included a gag order. that member of parolment was asking exactly how much the payout much. before james was able to give an effective answer on that question that's when the man came up to the left of rupert murdoch. it halted the entire hearing. we are still waiting to hear from rebekah brooks. if you see it he was trying to get a pie in the face of rupert murdoch. if we can get that shot back up again, you can see in niz left hand a tin -- and see if we can get that shot back up. it looks like he had a tin in his left hand a cream pie that he was going to smash in the face of rupert murdoch during

these hearings. the man was quickly taken away in handcuffs. you saw the images of him outside he had something all over his face. wendy dang in the pink jumping up. she is a volleyball player. that looks like a spike. she's known to be a fan of volleyball. anyway, you can see the pie right there trying to get in the face of rupert murdoch. the woman in the gray i'm not sure who she is. she was sitting to the left op of wendy dang. michelle is with us now. is this ovenly some type of protesters coming in to disrupt this and create a true embarrassment to rupert murdoch by delivering a pie in the face? >> we guess. we're basically looking at the exact same pictures that you are. and we're seeing a feed from all over sources here in the uk. it's the same picture so far. it does look like he had smm something in a tin in his hand and then it's all over himself. you assume he was trying to throw a pie possibly in rupert

murdoch's face. you never know was there something else dangerous involved surrounding that. there was tight, tight secure of course going in there. how he got that much in there. maybe it was shaving cream in a tin, who knows. we're watching this unfold right now. pretty shocking after so many hours of testimony that's really been gripping not only the uk but obviously the u.s. and elsewhere as well. for this to happen hat that moment right as they were about to finish up. maybe he wanted to hear what they had to say, too. >> we don't know exactly what type of substance was in that tin. this man coming up from the left-hand side of rupert murdoch with a tin ark substance in it welcoming like he was trying to get close to his face. the woman in gray deflected the man's wife. wendy deng the wife of rupert murdoch jumping up and slamming the man in the face. there's the images that we see now of the man after taken out by the bobbies in-. you see something all over his

face. we don't know exactly what happened to rupert murdoch they cut out to only give us the shot from behind the scenes as opposed to the front shot that we had before. michelle, explain what was the security that allowed people inside this room? i imagine it's a lot of reporters, but was it open to the public? >> i believe so. i wasn't there. i'm watching it from inside of our newsroom, i'm obviously not at that location. we don't know exactly the level of security at this point. we would have to ask somebody nearby. it was interesting watching this. the entire proceeding was so orderly, very polite. as we all expected. we really didn't expect it to erupt into yelling or anything else that you sometimes do see on the floor of parliament because it was a question and answer and the question ker as well sometimes they were persistent. they were extremely polite toward the murdochs and others that testified. another thing i thought was interesting was when the murdochs first came in, wendy

deng murdoch sitting directly behind rupert and james seemed distractly close to them. your eye is drawn to her shifting around, leaning forward or fixing her hair. it was lucky she was sitting so close and saw this coming. she seems to have fought this person off, really. >> obviously, very close in proximity and jumping over the woman to her left to strike the man in the face. msnbc's contessa brewer joins me now, you're coming in at the top of the hour to take over and watch the testimony taking place just as the last member of parliament the woman on the left was asking questions of james murdoch and then this erupts. so from what we see we don't have clarification just yet, contessa from your vantage point, it looks like he had some type of tin with what may have been shaving cream or whipped cream. >> we're just being told a white substance. we saw that picture of the protester after he'd been taken

into police custody. the protester himself has covering his face and shoulders and neck, there he is behind the glass. we can see him his arms now cuffed behind his back in custody of police. it does seem like we've been told that rupert murdoch did get some of that white substance on him. as you mention here wendy deng jumped up to defend her husband. we saw an arm swat there many the video. the thing is we've been watching this testimony for the last few hours here. it's been compelling testimony in and of itself, thomas. and then this has been the attention getter of the day. when you're standing here and you're listening to it and all of a sudden you hear the whole crowd, the mps, the members of parliament who have been involved in the questioning erupting audibly and looking with horror. you can see that reaction from james murdoch what's going on here? that was the attention getter. i think in some ways this encapsulates what the british

people are feeling right now about rupert murdoch and those involved in this phone hacking scandal. richard wolf is an msnbc contributor and has been following this as well. the testimony today though polite, though the questions and answers have been mostly civil. they have been tough. >> they have been tough. this whole experience never mind actually what the brits would call that is a custard pie confusingly with shaving cream. abisn't that, this is all a new experience for the british public and for the members of parliament. these committees that you're seeing may be flarl over here, they're relatively new phenomenon. they came up in 1979. they weren't given any teeth. it's since the expenses scandal in london involving some of the people around that table that these committees have taken on these new powers. the whole thing rupert murdoch said early on this was the most humble day of his life.

the whole experience is humbling for the people. at one end the murdochs never mind again this outrageous attack on him, but it's also interesting seeing these mps, these members of parliament trying to figure out what is the right approach here. cross examining, trying to get at the story. there's legal disputes. of course you have the murdochs trying to say we knew nothing. we were running a big company, we knew nothing. >> let me point out to the viewers the picture on the right is live. now it looks like wuf officials wiping off this guy. you call it a custard. the tradition is to throw pies at each other. we don't know. we're being told it was a white substance. that's what we can see. >> my sad cultural experience here is that it's the traditional construction of these things is a paper plate covered with shaving cream. and it dates back to 1970s,

bizarre '70s tv in tuk. it's become very widespread even people like bill gates has had these things thrust in his face. >> again, it just sort of characterizes how high emotions must be running. not only that you had a protester do this. in the video you clearly see wendy deng, rupert murdoch's wife do a hand swat right here. a hand swat against the guy. she's got to be feeling really defensive. really prktive. and as we've heard other analysts point out today here's a guy he's elderly it's not that he looks particularly vigorous sitting there answering these difficult questions from the same members of parliament who he probably thought web respectful and he could just go in and tap dance his way around these questions. >> a couple of things it's been fascinating watching wendy deng murdoch and her body language throughout. she's been leaning forward really engaged with these

proceedings. >> here we are back in session. sorry for the interruption richard. and my producer is saying -- who just apologized? the committee chairman just said to the people in the crowd the mps and rupert murdoch and the like that he's sorry he apologizes for that behavior. >> when discussing your initial appearance that it took guts for you to show up today. i think it shows immense guts mr. rupert murdoch for you to continue answering questions now under sitcircumstances and i thank you for it. my questions are just as tough as they would have been had that unfortunate incident not have occurred. mr. james murdoch if i could take you back briefly before we were so rudely interrupted to the question between the disparity of the settlements. could you tell me whether the taylor settlement involved a confidentiality clause that was not present in the settlement for the lesser amount of money? >> i can tell you that the

taylor settlement was a confidential settlement. and as to orsettlements post that and more recent settlements some have been confidential. i believe some have been confidential and some have not. i can certainly follow up to whether or not there have been any. it's customary to in an out of court settlement for both parties to agree. there's nothing unusual about an out of court settlement being made confidential and being agreed to being confidential. but it was and with respect to i think the base of the question is disparity and the amount of money involved there was nothing in the taylor settlement with respect to confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. the amount of money was derived as atestified earlier from a judgment made about what the likely damages would be and what the likely expenses and

litigation costs would have been had the company taken the litigation to its end and lost. >> yes, you've been very clear about that. that is your explanation for the size of the settlement. i'm really putting it to you that no ince inference could be drawn if the larger settlements contained confidentiality clauses and the smaller settlements did not, that despite what you say about it being a pragmatic decision being based on the cost of the company an ince inference could be drawn that silence was being bought by the confidentiality clause in the larger settlements. ? >> that inference would be false. >> okay, fair enough. many people would find it quite hard to believe that two executives that nobody would regard as passive had such little knowledge of widespread illegality at one of your flagship papers. can i ask you very specifically, mr. james murdoch, first, when did you become aware that the phones of members of the

celebrities and royal families and members of crime had been hacked. when did you become aware that the phone of the murder victim had been hacked? >> the terrible instance of voice mail interception around the case only came to my attention when it was reported in the press a few weeks ago. >> only when the guardian reported it. >> i can tell you it was a total shock that was the first that i had heard of it and became aware of it. >> is that the same for hacking of other victims of crime? in other words, have you been made aware prior to this story breaking that your reporters hacked into the phones of any other crime victims? >> no, i have been not been made aware of that. >> okay. just for the record you answered this to my colleague jim sheridan earlier, you'll be aware it's a very lively interest to regulators in the

united states. the actor jude law is alleging that his phone was hacked on u.s. soil. given that allegation are you absolute confident that no employee or contractor of news corp. or any of its properties hacked the phones of 9/11 victims? or their families? >> we have no evidence of that at all. >> have any incredible allegations -- i see you hesitating. >> i was going to say that those are incredibly serious allegations and they've come to light very recently. we do not know the voracity of those allegations and are trying to understand precisely what they are and any investigations. i was in -- i remember well as awe of us do the september 11th attacks. i was in the far east living there at the time. and it is just appalling to think that anyone associated with one of our papers would have done something like that.

i'm awir of no evidence about that. i'm well aware of the allegations and will eagerly cooperate with any investigations or try to find out what went on at that time. this is very, very new allegations just a few days old, i think. but they're very serious allegations and that sort of activity would have absolutely no place. it would be appalling. >> from the information provided to you so far, i noted mr. rupert murdoch's answer was emphatic. your answer was somewhat more nuanced. have you received any information that gives you cause for concern that employees of news corp. or contractors of news corp. may have indulged in that kind of hacking? >> no. we've only seen the allegations that have been made in the press i think it was in the mirror or something like that. and we're actively -- we'd like to know exactly what those allegations are and how to

understand anything about that. >> you have seen no internal documents, memos, records or received any verbal reports? >> no. >> thank you. and have you as a result of a wider review this has been a shock to your corporate culture, have you heard from any of your employees in other papers in other countries that phone hacking or illegal practices maybe happening in those properties? australian properties or any territory indeed where news corp. owns media properties? are you doing a global review and heard of any allegations of phone hacking in other territories? >> i'm not aware of any allegations. i haven't heard of those allegations. i go back to the code of ethics and code of conduct that all of our colleagues at news corporation journalist or management are required to have when they join the company and are briefed on those things. it is a matter of real

seriousness. for journalistic ethics of any of the newspapers or television channels within the group and certainly it's something that on a global basis we want to be consistent. we want to be doing the right thing. and when i say that illegal behavior has no place in this company that goes for the whole company. >> mr. rupert murdoch you are the chairman and chief executive of news corp. you are the head of the global company. the buck stops with you. given these allegations that you have said indeed when you opened the session you said this was the most hue himlating day of your life. given the -- >> humble. >> i'm sorry, humble. that is a mistake. the most humble day of your life. you feel humbled by these events. you are ultimately in charge of the company. given your shock at these things being laid out before you and the fact that you didn't know anything about them, have you instructed your editors around

the world to engage in reviews of their newsrooms to be sure that aren't replicated in other news corp. papers around the globe and if not, will you do so? >> no, but i am more than prepared to do so. >> thank you. one final question or two final questions. you touched earlier mr. james murdoch very briefly on the general culture of phone hacking that has in the past happened in this country. if i could put a couple of thins to you. piers morgan who is now a celebrity anchor at cnn was a former editor of the daily mirror. he said in his book recently i quote that that lilt trick of entering a standard four digit code allowed anyone to call a number and hear all your messages in that book he boasted that using that little trick enables him to win scoop of the year on a story about erickson.

that is a former editor of the daily mirror being very open about his personal use of phone hacking. yesterday in parliament paul day career -- >> sorry. he was a former news of the world executive. he was boasting about a story that happened when he was there. yesterday decker said that the daily mail has never in its history run a story based on phone hacking or blacking in any way. yet operation motorman, i'm sure your advise source would have made you aware found the daily mail had 50 journalists paying for 902 pieces of information obtained by the private investigator steve whitmore found to use some unorthodox measures. you told me that your advisors had told you to simply tell the truth, which i think was excellent advice.

is it not the fact -- is not the trut of the matter that journalists at the daily mail -- at news of the world felt entitled to go out there and use blacking deception and phone hacking because that was part of the general culture of corruption in the british tabloid press and that they didn't kick it up the chain to you because they felt they were entitled to use the same methods as everybody else. isn't that the plain fact of the matter? >> i am aware of those reports. the questions around other newspapers and their use of private nvt gators. i think all i can really speak to in this matter is the behaviors and the culture at the news of the world as we understand it. how we're trying to find out what really happened in the period in question. also i think importantly it's not for me here today to impugn

other newspapers, other journalists, other things like that. you've asked us -- >> i'm asking -- particularly phone hacking. because it was so wide in british tabloid journalism. didn't they not see it as evil as it was because it was so widespread? >> i don't accept that if a journalist on one of our papers or alt a television channel or orb or internet news operation feels that they don't have to hold themselves to a higher standard, you know, that that's -- i think that it's important that we don't say listen everybody was doing it and that's why people are doing this. at the end to have day we have to have a set of standards that we believe in. we have to have titles and journalists who operate at the highest possible standard. we have to make sure when they don't live up to that that they are held to account.

that's really the focus for us. >> mr. rupert murdoch have you considered suing? have you considered suing lewis? >> the reason you said you did not lie is that you relied on my colleague tim watson that you relied on the investigation by the police. the investigation by the press complaints commission and the investigation undertaken by your counsel lewis under whose care this enormous pile of documents was found. in this case you relied on three sets of people all of whose investigations were severely lacking. have you considered suing? >> i think any future legal claims or actions in any matter is really a matter for the future. that's not -- this really today is about how we actually make sure that these things don't

happen again. i won't comment or speculate on any future legal matters. >> the file of evidence you are asked by my colleague if you read it yourself and you said no. under the circumstances where you relied on other people and advisors and they severely let your company down, do not you not think that you ought to take the time and read through everything in that file yourselves personally? >> for clarify, i did say that i did read some of the contents of that. they were shown to me. and what i saw was sufficient to know that it should be zsh that the right thing to do was to hand these over to authorities to help them with their investigations. >> do you not think you were shown a representative sample that can be tricky under the circumstances and the enormous damage has been done to news corp., do you not think that as senior executives of the company you should take the time through the entire files to be completely apprised of what happened. >> i'm happy to do so. i think i've seen a bit of it.

>> okay. my last question is for you mr. rupert murdoch. you said that your friend of 52 years i think hinton had stepped down and had resigned because he was in charge of the company at the time. in other words he said he was the captain of the ship and reresigned. is it not the case that you are the captain of the ship. you are the chief executive officer of news corp., the global corporation. >> yes. >> it is a much bigger ship, but you are in charge of it. as you said in earlier questions you do not regard yourselves as a hands off chief executive. you work ten to 12 hours a day. this happened on your watch, have you considered resigning? >> no. >> why not? >> because i feel that people have let me down. i'm not saying who or at what

level. i think they behaved disgracefully and betrayed them and me and it's for them to pay. i think that frankly i'm the best person to clear this up. >> thank you mr. murdoch. as i say i do very much appreciate your immense courage in having seen this session through despite what just happened to you. >> thank you. >> i will allow mr. watson a very brief on closing question. >> when you signed off the taylor payment did you see or were you made aware of the four level email, the transcript of the mail? >> no, i was not aware of that at the time. why on earth -- you paid an astronomical sum and there was no reason to. >> there was every reason to settle the case given the

likelihood of losing the case and given the damages that we had received counsel would be levied. >> if taylor and cliffford are prepared to release their obligation to confidentiality will you release them from their confidentiality clause so that we can get to the few facts of those particular cases? >> k not comment on the cliffford matter at all. i wasn't involved in that matter. as to the taylor matter et is a confidential agreement. i don't think it's worth exploring hypotheticals. >> the facts of this case to help us get to the truth. if he removes himself from an obligation, if he allows his papers to be released -- >> it's a hypothetical scenario. i'm happy to correspond with the chairman about what specifically you'd like to know about the settlements other than the detailed testimony i've guchb you today. >> can i continue on with a few

more questions? >> i'm going to halt it. i think we have covered this at some considerable length. >> actually, chairman, we haven't. but i respect it. >> mr. murdoch, your wife is a very good left hook. >> thank you. >> mr. murdoch you did ask to make a closing statement and the committee would be content for you to do so. >> thank you mr. chairman, and members of the co-committee. i would just like to read a short statement now. my son and i came here with great respect for all of you for parliament and for the people of britain that we represent. this is the most humble day of my kroor and all that has happened i know that we needed to be here today. james and i would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened. especially with regard to listen toing the the voice mail of victims of crime.

my company has 52,000 employees. i have led it for 57 years. and i have made my share of mistakes. i have lived in many countries, employed hundreds of honest and hard working journalists. i own nearly 200 newspapers and followed countless stories about people and families around the world. at no time do i remember being as sickened as when i heard what the dowda family had to endure. which i think was last monday week. nor do i recall being as angry as when i was told that the news of the world could have compounded their distress. i want to thank the family for graciously giving me the opportunity a apologize in person. i would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how

completely and deeply sorry i am apologizing cannot take back what has happened. still, i want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives. i fully understand their ire. and i intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness. i understand our responsibility to corporate with tow's session as well as with future inquiries. we now know that things went badly wrong at the news of the world. for a newspaper to hold others to account, it failed when it came to itself. the behavior that occurred against everything that i stand for. and my son, too. and not only betrayed our readers and me we also hurt the many thousands of magnificent

professionals in other divisions of our company around the world. so let me be clear in saying invading people's privacy by listening toe their voice mail is wrong. paying police officers for information is wrong. they are inconsistent with our codes of conduct and any place in any part of the company that i run. but saying sorry is not enough. thicks must be put right. no excuses. this is why news international is cooperating fully with the police whose job it is to see that justice is done. it is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the legal process. i'm sure the committee will understand this. i wish we had managed to see and fully solve these problems much earlier.

when two members sent to prison in 2007 i thought this matter had been settled. the police ended their investigations and others told that news international conducted an internal review. i am confident when james later rejoined news corporation he thought the case had closed, too. these are subjects you'll no doubt wish to explore. and have explored today. this country has given me our companies and our employees many opportunities. i'm grateful for them. i hope our contributions to britain will one day also be recognized. above all, i hope that we will come to understand the wrongs of the past and prevent them from happening again. and in the years ahead, restore the nation's trust in our company and in all british

journalism. i'm committed to doing everything in my power to make this happen. thank you. >> thank you. can i on behalf of the committee thank you for giving up so much of oour time this afternoon to come here. i would like to apologize again for the wholly unacceptable treatment that you received from a member of the public. >> here, here. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> all members. >> the committee will now have a break for five minutes before we move to next. >> a quick break there in the house of commons select committee on media culture and sport in great britain. this is the parliamentary committee who's been charged with questioning rupert murdoch and son james in the phone hacking scandal there in great britain. rupert murdoch without his jacket at the end of the hearing there because a protesters had gone in and tloen thrown what was reported to be a pie plate or a paper plate full of whipped

cream at the chairman of news corp. and his wife wendy deng got up to defend her husband against the attack. here you see it just off camera. he was taken into custody handcuffed where the police then wiped some of that shaving foam off of the protesters as it's been reported. a difficult day for the murdochs there in the house of commons committee. where they're questioning this news corp. chief and his son james murdoch. we have been following the hearing from the get-go. rupert murdoch started it off by saying michelle, this is one of the most humble dayings of his life. >> he said that. later he did change that to say this is the most humble day of my career. i don't know if that was intentional. the second time he was reading it off a peace of paper. where do you begin? this has been such a day. first we heard from police who have resigned over this. we know the tentacles extend far

into many levels of society here. police, the press, the public, politicians, all those important people. to be questioning the murdochs a lot of good questions and many of the questions that we've been hearing now of them without them having the luxury of them present things like who knew what and what did you know? did you ask this person this question? what did they know? why didn't you ask that question? i think it got to a point over these hours of them basically getting down to the same thing. saying we're not really that intimately involved in the daily workings of the news of the world. 4 is less than 1% of the company. we were debetrayed by people we trusted. we didn't know about all these questions that you keep asking us over and over and over again. james murdoch, rupert murdoch's son always reverted to saying we believe in good journalism. this is wrong. at one point rupert murdoch said he was ashamed of what had

happened. he ended the testimony today by saying sorry isn't enough. that things must be put right. no excuses. that they will cooperate with police until justice is done. >> when he was asked specifically we're seeing all these people resigning because they said i was in charge, it's the right thing to do. one of the mps said well aren't you really in charge, aren't you the captain of the ship? why is everybody else resigning and you're not? he said, no. i don't have responsibility for this. i am the captain, but i'm the captain of a much, much bigger ship. it's the other people that i trusted who betrayed the company and betrayed me. >> he said he felt let down there. he said the behavior went against everything that he personally stands for. he went on the record and said that invading people's privacy by listening to their voice mails is wrong. he said paying off police for information is wrong. the police themselves, the ones who have resigned have also been

called to testify today. let me bring in richard wolf who's following this part of it. it looks like in this case the police said that they're embarrassed by their -- we just lost richard wolf. let's go to michael isikoff now. michael, good to see you today. i know you've been watching this hearing from the beginning, too. much of the investigation has focused on how cozy this relationship was between scotland yard -- >> do you guys want us to stick around? >> stevenson, the scotland yard chief who has resigned said he's embarrassed by the fact he hired neil wallace to be a media consultant. >> i should say in terms of news for american audience there were some very strong denials here by both from rupert and james murdoch that there was any evidence that 9/11 victims in the united states had their phones hacked.

that's important because that's what the fbi is investigating. that is probably the most serious allegation relating to news corp. in the united states that's out there and they couldn't be more emphatic that they've seen no evidence of that and they have no evidence of that. now, again, they've made some pretty strong denials in the past. we'll have to wait and see this play out. but it is worth noting that on that front in familiar they were pretty emphatic. the other point and michelle referred to this is, you know, rupert murdoch was asked point-blank, do you intend to resign and he said point-blank, no. and he believes while this disgraceful actions have taken place and he's -- this is the most humble day of his career, he is the best person to set the ship right. and that's important because there's been speculation and reports just many the last 24 hours that rupert murdoch might

be -- might step down. that there might be a new ceo put in charge of news corp. one of the biggest and most powerful media companies many the world and rupert murdoch showed his steel there and made it clear he's not going anywhere. >> michael isikoff thank you so much for keeping tabs on the hearing todd and for your insight. now let's bring in richard wolf who's been following this as well. before we get to the testimony can we talk about that pie in the face so to speak, the plate full of shaving cream that got flung. apparently it did spatter rupert murdoch a little bit which is why we're told he took off his jacket for the end of the hearing and wrap up of questioning. tell me about the tradition here and what we've learned about who this protesters was and what happened in this session? >> again, this started off on british tv many the '70s and has

become a way of protest, it is what the mp called it, it was an assault on this person on rupert murdoch. thank goodness his wife stepped in the way she did. at least there was some satisfaction there. the gentleman responsible is a comedian, an annan kis. it was obviously attention seeking. the idea that this was part of this bizarre story i guess fits into the humbling idea of the whole hearing and committee questions. but you know, it's outrageous that it could happen in a high security situation. this is a government building. it's actually just outside the how of commons, the parliament building. but still it should never have been allowed close to happening. the guy tweeted about it just before he did it. >> what we saw was the members of parliament, the chair of the committee came forward and said multiple times i'm sorry. the questioner said she was sorry, but she said the questions are going to be just

as tough even though you've agreed to sit here despite the attack that happened. and they were tough today. there was a lot of -- there was even pressure at the end of this hearing on james murdoch to say hey, i will forego the obligation that i've created with the victims' families who've accepted payment in return for settling these cases, phone hacking cases. there was some pressures from the mps to say will you let us into the details of what actually happened there. james murdoch was wasn't giving. >> some of the best questioning was coming at the end. it was easy to overlook because of the pie incident. lewis who was asking those questions asked rupert murdoch specifically what she called a root and branch review among all the other parts of news corporation to see whether or not they're conducting these kind of unethical behaviors hacking what they call blacking where you're impersonating

someone. have you ordered a review and would you do so? rupert murdoch said he was humbled and shocked. he said flatly no. he had not ordered that kind of review. even though it was the captain of the -- why is it so reliant on external lawsuits, on the police? when it has all the own information that credibility questions, that responsibility questions i think the mps were very dogged at trying to get at today. rupert murdoch, james murdoch did a good job saying they didn't know about certain things. overall they painted a picture of a company that either didn't know or didn't want to know what was going on in some of the very profitable and cash flow generating divisions. >> we're waiting for the hearing to resume here with rebekah brooks who's the former chief

executive of news international. and she of course had resigned. we're going to be watching for that. richard, my thanks to you for keeping tabs on that. i know you'll continue to do so. nbc news has not confirmed who the attacker was with rupert murdoch. we're working to confirm. sky news is reporting that the guy who attacked murdoch is a comedian. describes hms as an activist and tweeted just before the attack, it is a far better thing that i do now than i have ever done before and he has the hash tag splat. we're working to confirm that it is indeed this comedian named johnny marbles. we're also keeping an eye on news corp. stock, which has rebounded today back some 4%. it looks like there are investors who really like the fact what the murdochs are willing to go in and answer these difficult questions. with me is felix gillette with bloomberg.

what is the concern for folks who might want to buy or own shares of news corp. and why might it re-assure them to see rupert murdoch sitting in front of these members of parliament? >> there's so much uncertainty swirling around the company right now. i think the murdochs did a great job today of really giving a strong performance. jame murdoch in particular seemed very confident and in control. i think gave investors a little bit of certainty that these guys are going to be in charge and they have a handle on this situation to a certain degree. i mean it was also pretty impressive that they kept on script for the most part. you know, james murdoch again and again saying how apologetic he was towards the victims of the phone hacking scandal. mentioning several times that they had set up a compensation committee to deal with this. that they had accepted liability. and rupert basically staying with the script that this is a huge company. there's 52,000 employees that news of the world represented

less than 1% of all revenue. >> the news of the world in great britain was a huge tabloid with far-reaching influence. in fact, rebekah brooks who was the chief we're just -- she just walked back in now to the hearing room. now it's her turn to site in the hot seat and answer some tough questions. she's now resigned from the company. we're going to listen in to the questions. felix, my thanks to you. >> this jong going police investigation which could lead to police proceedings. we appreciated your statement when you revined from the company that you wanted to be as helpful as company to various investigations that are underway. could i just start then thursday international issued a statement in july 2009 there has been evidence to support allegations that news of the world journalists have accessed voice

mails of many individuals. would you accept now that is no right? >> thank you, mr. chairman. firstly, just before i answer that question, i would like to add my own personal apologies to the apologies that james and rupert murdoch have made today. clearly what happened at the news of the world and certainly when the allegations of voice intercepts -- voice mail intercepts of victims of crime is pretty horrific and abhorrent. so i just wanted to reiterate that. i also was very keen to come here and answer questions today. as you know i was arrested and interviewed by the police a couple of days ago. so i have legal representation here just so i don't impede those criminal proceedings which

you would expect, but i intend to answer everything as openly as i can and not to use that if it all possible. i know you had a briefing around the same. >> we are grateful for that. perhaps i can advise you to comment on whether or not you now accept the statement issued saying that news of the world journalist journalists had not accessed voice mails is actually untrue? >> again, as you've heard in the last few hours, the is that since the sienna miller civil documents came into our position the end of december 2010, that was the first time that we and is senior management of the company at the time had actually seen some documentary evidence actually relating to a current

employee. i think that we acted quickly and decisively then when we had that information. as you know it was our document -- our evidence that opened up the police inquiry into 2011 in january. and since then we have admitted liability on the civil cases, endeavored to settle as many as possible. we've pointed sir charles gray so victims of phone hacking if they feel they want to come directly to us and don't want to incur expensive legal costs they can come directly and be dealt with very swiftly. as you know the court process is taking its time and those cases aren't going to be heard until i think january 2012 to is compensation scheme is there in order for people to come forward. of course, there were mistakes made in the past. but i think and i hope that you will agree since we saw the evidence at the end of december we acted properly and quickly.

>> so until you saw the evidence which was produced in the sienna miller case you continued to believe that the only person at the news of the world who had been implicated in phone hacking was clive goodman? >> i think if you -- just the sequence of events. in 2009 i think was the first time that all of us -- and i know some members of the committee spent a long time on this story and looking at the whole sequence of events. so i know you all know it pretty well. just to reiterate in 2009 when we heard about when the gordon taylor story appeared in the guardian, i think that that's when information unravelled. but very, very slowly. i mean, we have conducted many internal investigations. i know you spent a lot of time talking to james and rupert

murdoch about them. but we had been told by people at the news of the world at the time that consistently denied any of these allegations in various internal investigations. it was only when we saw the sienna miller documentation that we realized that the severity of the situation. and just to point out one of the problems of this case has been our lack of visibility and what was seized -- we've had zero visibility. part of the drip drip effect of this is because we only see it during a civil procedure. and then we act on it accordingly. >> okay. it is now your view based on that evidence that certainly you were lied to by senior employees? >> i think unfortunately because of the criminal procedure i'm not sure that it's possible for

me to infer guilt until these criminal procedures have taken place. >> i understand. tom watson. >> there are many questions i would like to ask you, but i won't be able to do it today because you are facing criminal proceedings. so i'm going to be narrow in my questioning. why did you sack tom kroen? >> we didn't sack tom kroen. what happened with tom kroen was when we made the regrettable decision to close news of the world after 168 years, tom kroen has predominantly been the news of the world lawyer. his status is legal manager because of the situation at the news of the world he predominantly spent most of his time in fact pretty much 99% of his time on the news of the world. the rest of the company and the rest of the titles we had appointed new lawyers and there wasn't a job for tom once we closed the news of the world and

he left. >> what's -- >> sorry? >> someone is still dealing with the news of the world legal cases? >> the civil cases are being dealt with by like i said the first one is the standard management committee that we've set up. but also we've got some test cases coming up before the judge in january when there are people dealing with it. but tom kroen's role was a hands on legal manager of the news of the world. and obviously when we closed the paper there wasn't a job there. >> i must have misunderstood what james murdoch said. he implied that you -- i might -- it's been a busy day. as a journalist and editor of news of the world and the sun, how extensively did you work with private detectives?

>> i think only the sun not at all. when i was editor of the news of the world as you know i came before this committee and just as i became editor oof the sun in relation to privacy and operation motor man as it's called. i think back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives and cross fleet street. as you know a chart was published of which i can't remember whether the news of the world was on it. i think it was fourth. i think the sun on the table was below take a break magazine. but certainly the top five, the observer, the guardian, the news of the world, the daily mail. >> can i just interrupt there. i used to work for the observer, but left in 2001. the observers was not at the top four. >> it's irrelevant. >> top sixth, perhaps.

>> just to answer my question, you extensively worked with private investigators is is that the answer? >> no, what i said is the use of private detectives in the late '90s and 2000 was a practice of fleet street and after operation motor man and privacy, fleet street reviewed this practice and in the main the use of private detectives was stopped. don't forget at the time as yor aware it was also about the data protection. data protection acts and changes to that which were made. that's why we had the committee in 2003. >> just for the third time, how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the news of the world employed private detectives like most newspapers on fleet street. >> it's fair to say you were aware of and approved payments to private detectives? >> i was aware the news of the world used private detectives, yes. >> you would have approved

payments to them? >> that's not how it works, but i was aware that we used them. >> who would have approved the payments? >> the payment system at the newspaper which has been discussed at length is very simply the editor's job is to acquire the overall budget for the paper from the senior management. once that budget is aquired it is given to the managing ed tore to allocate to different departments. each person in what department has a different level of authorization. the final payments are authorized by the managing editor unless there is a particularly big item such as photographs or something that need to be discussed on a wider level and then the editor will be brought in. >> so he would have discussed some payments to private detectives with you? >> not necessarily, no. we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments

to me, but i don't particularly remember any instants. >> you don't remember if you discussed any payments at all? >> i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives i was aware the news of the world used private detectives as every paper on fleet street did. >> so you don't recall whether you authorized payments? >> the payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editors. >> did he discuss it with you? >> sorry? >> you can't remember if he discussed it with you? >> i can't remember if we ever discussed an individual payment. ? >> in your letter to 2009 you said that you did not recall meeting him? you'll appreciate that is an inadequate answer under the circumstances. we require a specific response to our questions. did you ever have any contact directly or through others? >> none whatsoever. gr would your former diary

secretary michelle be able to confirm that? >> michelle? >> diary secretary michelle? >> i had a p.a. for 19 years called cheryl. >> would she be able to confirm it? >> we don't keep back 19 years. she may have some i don't know. >> in a paper format or electronic format? >> i did not meet him. >> i'm talking about your diary. >> it would have been on a paper format until railroad conveniently. >> do you think glenn would know if you met him? >> i'm sure he would. yes. >> were you aware of the arrangement news group newspapers had whilst you were editor? >> no. >> you didn't know what he did? >> i didn't know particularly he was one of the detectives that was newsed by news of the world, no. >> you didn't know he was on the

payroll? >> no. i first heard his name in 2006. >> did you receive any information from originated from him or his methods? >> to me? to me personally? >> you was editor, did anyone bring you any information as a result of his methods? >> i know it seems entirely appropriate question, i can only keep saying the same answer, i didn't know -- i never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and had heard about, but he wasn't one of them. >> we'll come on to them. now that you know what you know, do you suspect that you might have received information on the basis of stuff gathered? >> now i know what i know is, this is one of the difficulties. obviously i know quite an extebsive amount now particularly the last six months of investigating this story.

and i'm aware he worked on and off at the news of the world i think in the late '90s and continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously with eif we worked for news of the world at that time he was involved. i think the judge said in 2007, which again we may disagree with that now. the jumg said in 2007 when he was convicted, that he had a perfectly legitimate contract with the nice of the world for research and informs gaitive work. the judge said that repeatedly throughout the trial. that's what i can tell you. >> did you either contact directly or through others with john thon reese? >> no. >> do you know about john thon reese? >> i do. again, i heard a lot recently

about downthan reese. i watch the panorama program as we all di in the late 1990s, that's my information. >> do you find it peculiar having served a sentence for a serious criminal offense he was then rehired by the paper? >> it does seem extraordinary. >> do you know who hired him? >> no. >> do you know who signed his contract? >> no. the zblid you not take the time to find out? >> the investigation that we've been conducting for six months has been particularly around the interception of voice mails. the management and standards committee at news international

are going to look at john than reese. as to the conclusion i do not know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information as i said that reese worked at many newspapers on fleet street in the late '90s and then he was rehired by the news of the world sometime in 2005. >> do you know what he was doing at that time? >> in? >> 2005-2006? >> i don't. i'm sorry, no. >> did you not ask. >>? i was the editor of the sun at the time. i didn't know they had rehired him. >> did you not wondered what he did in 2005-2006 given that you've got a hacking scandal break around you? >> absolutely. i have the information that panorama have that reese worked as a private investigator in the panorama program it said that he was conducting many, many illegal offenses. that's what i